A study of public opinion in the Netherlands
Concerns about the functioning and future of democracy in the Netherlands can have a variety of causes. For example, European integration and other international dependencies may be perceived as a threat, as may increasing administrative complexity or shortcomings of politicians and political organisations and procedures. Not least among the causes for concern are developments in the attitudes of the demos of democracy. Whether or not influenced by the factors just cited, there appear to be signs of growing political dissatis-faction and declining democratic engagement. How future-proof is Dutch democracy, and what scope is there for improving it, in the light of the views and wishes of the populace?
This question prompted this small study of public opinion in the Netherlands, carried out at the request of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. Based on ear-lier research and literature and in particular on re-analyses of available survey data, this report presents a picture of public opinion in the Netherlands and looks briefly at ideas for democratic renewal and the desirability of new research.
In the first chapter we outline the four goals of this exploratory study: to characterise Dutch attitudes to democracy and politics; to look in more depth at standardised opinions and attitudes through the responses of citizens themselves; to divide the Dutch population into segments with related attitudes and opinions; and to suggest topics for further
research.
As the starting point for the study, the second chapter places the present public mood and preferences in the Netherlands in a broader perspective and considers how attitudes to democracy and politics have developed since the 1970s and how public opinion in the Netherlands compares with other European countries. In line with earlier studies, long-term survey research provides no indications of a fundamental decline in support for the idea of democracy, nor of reducing satisfaction with democratic practice or a major reduc-tion in political trust. The degree of satisfacreduc-tion with democracy, and above all trust in poli-tics, is however highly volatile and dependent on political and economic developments. To the extent that it can be said that there is a crisis of democracy, it is certainly not new, nor is it more pronounced than elsewhere. Compared with other European countries, the Nether-lands is not in a bad situation. The level of support for democracy as a form of government is comparable with elsewhere, while satisfaction with democratic practice and political trust are higher. Only the populations of the Nordic countries hold – slightly – more posi-tive attitudes.
In the third chapter we look at the attitudes, perceptions and opinions of the Dutch public regarding democracy in the 21st century. The Dutch regard free elections and equal treat-ment before the courts as important characteristics of a democracy and, when asked to
assess the degree to which these characteristics are present in the Netherlands, many believe that there are free elections in the Netherlands. Opinions are more divided on equal treatment by the courts. The Dutch public take a positive view on the presence of a free media and freedom of opposition. More than 90% support democracy as an idea, and more than 70% are sufficiently satisfied with its functioning. People are less satisfied with the way in which democracy is put into practice – with politics, in other words. A good deal of criticism is levelled at elected politicians, and there is wide support for citizens having a greater say and for more direct democracy (such as referenda on key issues or elected may-ors). However, the majority do not think it necessary that citizens should be able to influ-ence all laws, and many prefer representative democracy to a model in which as many issues as possible are decided by referendum. This would seem to suggest that at least a proportion of the Dutch public see direct democracy mainly as a way of adding to or improving representative democracy rather than as an alternative to it. A large group believe that the government could be run more efficiently and that politicians should tackle problems rather than talking about them. However, the Dutch show little support for decisions being taken by business leaders or independent experts; the majority prefer elected politicians. Voting in elections, especially national elections, is still a common form of political participation. Other forms, such as attending public consultation meetings or taking part in campaigns, are much less used.
Chapter 4 presents the views of citizens themselves on democracy and politics, based on open responses to survey questions. It looks at what associations the word ‘democracy’
elicits in Dutch citizens and why they believe that Dutch democracy is functional (or not), and also at how they talk about politics. The Dutch associate the word ‘democracy’ with freedom (including freedom of expression) and of democracy as a decision-making proce-dure (a system in which everyone has the right to vote or to express his or her opinion).
A third association – mentioned rather less often – is ‘equality’. Not everyone has the same (instant) association: university graduates, for example, less often associate democracy with ‘freedom’ and more often see it as a decision-making procedure. People who associ-ate democracy with ‘freedom’ are more often satisfied with the functioning of democracy than people with different associations. We asked people to explain in their own words why they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the functioning of democracy in the Nether-lands. Most people tended to cite reasons for dissatisfaction; despite the relatively good overall assessment of democracy, arguments for being satisfied were less common.
The main reasons put forward for dissatisfaction were that politicians do not listen and simply do what they want, that citizens have too little say and that politicians talk too much and act too little; or else they were dissatisfied with current policy at the time of the survey. People who are satisfied mainly mention the right to vote. Where people spontane-ously express their concerns about politics, those concerns are often directed at politicians who do not listen or who promise much but deliver little. People who feel that things are moving in the wrong direction in a societal policy domain (e.g. care, integration of minori-ties) hold politicians responsible for this. They have the idea that politicians pay too little
attention to what citizens want and sometimes go against public opinion by pushing through their own personal agenda.
To portray the diversity in Dutch public opinion, in chapter 5 we classify citizens into groups based on their democratic preferences and attitudes to politics. A latent class analysis of support for representative, direct and antipolitical democracy enabled the population to be divided into three groups: 12% who are satisfied with the existing representative system and its bearers, 16% who are dissatisfied with this system (and who are more in favour of direct and antipolitical democracy) and, between these two, the largest group of 72% who tend not to have very pronounced preferences and who sometimes exhibit unusual combi-nations. If we look at a larger range of opinions on democracy, politicians and engagement in politics, cluster analysis enables five groups to be identified. In the centre there is now a group of 29% with low political engagement and fairly average opinions. On one side of this group is a cluster of 26% who are dissatisfied and 11% who reject the current system.
The second group are substantially more negative about politicians and the institutions of representative democracy. Members of this group are also more often not interested in politics and are slightly more strongly in favour of direct democracy. On the other side of the indifferent central group is a cluster of 17% who are satisfied and a group of 17% who are critically positive. The satisfied group are the most positive of all and see the least need for change or greater influence for themselves. The ‘critical positives’ are less exuberant about present-day politics, more often see benefits in elements of direct democracy and would like to have more political influence themselves. Women are slightly overrepresen-ted in the indifferent group, young people in the satisfied group and 35-54 year-olds in the group who reject the current system. However, the biggest sociodemographic differences are associated with education level. The lower-educated are overrepresented in the reject-ing and indifferent clusters, the higher-educated in the satisfied cluster and to a lesser extent in the critical positive cluster. The satisfied group are the most involved with politi-cal parties (as supporters or members), while those who reject the system are the least engaged, though there is no difference between them in terms of political activity. The rejecting group cannot be placed either to the left or right of the political spectrum, though they are the most in favour of less lower income inequality. They are also the most
opposed to the multicultural society and to the European Union.
In the concluding chapter (chapter 6) we describe the main findings of this study, examine the associations found in the light of discussions about the future of democracy and out-line three possible paths for follow-up research. Support for the principle of democracy is and remains high, but people are less positive about ‘politics’. Political dissatisfaction is focused mainly on a lack of political responsiveness. There is strong support for more
direct democracy, mainly as an addition to representative democracy. There is clear dissatis-faction about political responsiveness and – as a consequence of this – a desire for greater representation and a bigger say. But it is also clear that citizens do not always want to be consulted on everything. The fact that citizens want more opportunity to participate in decision-making therefore does not automatically mean that they will actually do so.
Based on existing research and re-analyses of survey data, we have portrayed a proportion of the democratic and political dissatisfaction in the Netherlands, but this does not in itself produce an answer to the question of whether Dutch democracy is future-proof. In order to help answer this question, more information and debate are needed, and we outline three possible pathways for further research. First, more extensive and broader opinion research could be carried out so as to make a better contribution to the public debate. That research would need to focus on a wider array of forms of democracy, would need to take into account differences between the local and national level, would have to allow people to choose between alternatives and explicitly ask about the judgements they make, and would have to focus more on the question of how things could be done differently (rather than on what is bad about the present system). Second, future research could focus more specifically on groups of ‘outsiders’ or ‘dropouts’. These (sometimes marginal or hard to reach) groups are often ignored in existing research, which means that the share of people with a-democratic opinions or who are far removed from democracy and politics is under-estimated. Third, future research could focus on problems with representation in a broad sense. One of the concerns about modern Western democracies relates to the issue of rep-resentation, which is broader than representation via political parties because it also includes representation in civil society through membership and donor organisations. It is unclear how representative these organisations are of their members and precisely who those members are. The norm of representation may still be deeply rooted in the Nether-lands, but traditional forms of institutional representation appear to be becoming more fragile and disputed at the start of the 21st century.
Literatuur
Aerts, R. (2009). Het aanzien van de politiek. Geschiedenis van een functionele fictie. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
Alonso, S. (2014). ‘You can vote but you cannot choose’: Democracy and the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone. Madrid:
Instituto Mixto Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (working paper).
Anderson, C. en E. Goodyear-Grant (2010). Why are highly informed citizens sceptical of referenda? In: Electo-ral Studies, jg. 29, nr. 2, p. 227-238.
Andeweg R. en H. van Gunsteren (1994). Het grote ongenoegen. Over de kloof tussen burgers en politiek. Bloemen-daal: Aramith Uitgevers.
Andeweg, R. en G. Irwin (2009). Governance and Politics of the Netherlands Basingstoke: Palgrave.Andeweg, R. en J. Thomassen (2011). Van afspiegelen naar afrekenen?: De toekomst van de Nederlandse democratie. Leiden: Lei-den University Press.
Anker, H. en E. Oppenhuis (1996). Dutch Parliamentary Election Study, 1994. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consor-tium for Political and Social Research.
Ariely, G. (2015). Democracy-assessment in cross-national surveys. In: Social Indicators Research, jg. 121, p. 621-635,
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barber, B. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Random House.
Baviskar, S. en M.F.T. Malone (2004). What democracy means to citizens – and why it matters. In: European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, jg. 76, p. 3-23.
Becker, J. en P. Dekker (2005). Beeld van beleid en politiek. In: De sociale staat van Nederland 2005 (p. 328-362).
Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Bengtsson, Å. en M. Mattila (2009). Direct Democracy and its Critics: Support for direct democracy and
‘stealth’ democracy in Finland. In: West European Politics, jg. 32, nr. 5, p. 1031-1048.
Bernauer, J. en A. Vatter (2012). Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy. In: European Journal of Political Research, jg. 51, nr. 4, p. 435-468.
Bilakovics, S. (2012). Democracy without politics. Cambridge (vs): Harvard University Press.
Binnema, H. en A. Michels (2015). G1000 in Amersfoort, Uden en Kruiskamp. De realisatie van democratische waarden (working paper). Geraadpleegd via http://doedemocratie.net/sites/default/files/documenten.
Blais, A. en F. Gélineau, (2007). Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. In: Political Studies, jg. 55, nr.
2, p. 425-441.
Boulanger, P.M., A.L. Lefin, T. Bauler, N. Prignot, L. Van Ootegem, S. Spillemaeckers en B. Defloor (2009).
Towards theoretically sound and democratically legitimate indicators of well-being in Belgium. Final Report Phase 1.
Brussel: Belgian Science Policy.
Bovens, M. en A. Wille (2011). Diplomademocratie: Over de spanning tussen meritocratie en democratie. Amsterdam:
Bakker.
Brink, G. van den (2002). Mondiger of moeilijker? Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers / Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
Brons, C. (2014). Political discontent in the Netherlands in the first decade of the 21th century (proefschrift).Tilburg:
Universiteit Tilburg.
Bruyn, L. de, en W. Foppen (1974). Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 1972-1973 (deel 2). Nijmegen: Instituut voor Politi-cologie.
bzk (2015). Vitale lokale democratie: Richting en ruimte voor verandering. Agenda lokale democratie, ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 5 januari 2015.
Caluwaerts, D. en M. Reuchamps (2015). Strengthening democracy through bottom-up deliberation:
An assessment of the internal legitimacy of the G1000 project. In: Acta Politica, jg. 50, nr. 2, p. 151-170.
Canache, D., J.J. Mondak en M.A. Seligson (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. In: Public Opinion Quarterly, jg. 65, nr. 4, p. 506-528.
Coffé, H. en A. Michels (2014). Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy.
In: Electoral Studies, jg. 35, p. 1-11.
Coggan, P. (2013). The last vote. The threats to Western democracy. Londen: Allen Lane.
Craig, S., R. Niemi en G. Silver (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the nes pilot study items.
In: Political Behavior, jg. 12, nr. 3, p. 289-314.
Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dalton, R.J. (2001). Public opinion and direct democracy. In: Journal of Democracy, jg. 12, nr. 4, p. 141-153.
Dalton, R.J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R.J., D. Farrell en I. McAllister (2011). Political parties and democratic linkage: How parties organize democracy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dekker, P. (red.) (2002). Niet-stemmers. Een onderzoek naar achtergronden en motieven in enquêtes, interviews en focus-groepen. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Dekker, P. (2009). Verscheidenheid verkend. In: P. Dekker, T. van der Meer, P. Schyns en E. Steenvoorden, Crisis in aantocht? (p. 115-134). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Dekker, P. en T. van der Meer (2011). Geen vertrouwen meer? In: Loek Halman en Inge Sieben (red.), Respect man! Tolerantie, solidariteit, betrokkenheid en andere moderne waarden (p. 197-210). Amersfoort: Celsus.
Dekker, P. en J. den Ridder (2011a). Vertrouwen in burgerperspectieven. In: kwalon, Tijdschrift voor Kwalitatief Onderzoek, jg. 16, nr. 2, p. 28-33.
Dekker, P. en J. den Ridder (2011b). Slotbeschouwing. In: P. Dekker en J. den Ridder (red.), Stemming onbestemd (175-187). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Dekker, P. en J. den Ridder (2011c). Burgerperspectieven 2011|3. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Dekker, P. en J. den Ridder (2014). Burgerperspectieven 2014|1. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Dekker, P. en J. den Ridder (2015). Burgerperspectieven 2015|1. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Denters, B. en P. Geurts (1993). Aspects of political alienation: an exploration of their differential origins and effects. In: Acta Politica, jg. 18, nr. 4, p. 445-469.
Dijk, H. van, en H. Coffé (2011). Meer of minder directe democratie? In: Mens & Maatschappij, jg. 86, p. 203-226.
Donovan, T. en J. Karp (2006). Popular support for direct democracy. In: Party Politics, jg. 12, nr. 5, p. 671-688.
Dunn, K. (2012). Voice and trust in parliamentary representation. In: Electoral Studies, jg. 31, p. 393-405.
Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis (vol. 25). Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prentice-Hall.
Elshout, S. (2012a). Public attitudes towards representative, direct and stealth democracy. Vragenlijst afge-nomen in het liss panel. Tilburg: CentERdata.
Elshout, S. (2012b). Politics and values. liss Core Study Wave 5. Vragenlijst afgenomen in het liss panel. Til-burg: CentERdata.
Engelen, E.R. (2004). Associatief-democratische dromen over verplaatste politiek. In: E.R. Engelen en M. Sie Dhian Ho (red.), De staat van de democratie. De democratie voorbij de staat (p. 307-356). Amsterdam: Amster-dam University Press / Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
Engelen, E.R. en M. Sie Dhian Ho (red.) (2004). De staat van de democratie. De democratie voorbij de staat. Amster-dam: Amsterdam University Press / Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
ess (2013). Round 6 Module on Europeans’ Understandings and Evaluations of Democracy – Final Module in Template.
Londen: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys/City University London.
Everitt, B.S., S. Landau, M. Leese en D. Stahl (2011 [1974]). Cluster analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
Ferrin, M. (nog te verschijnen). An empirical assessment of satisfaction with democracy. In: M. Ferrin en H. Kriesi (red.), How Europeans view and evaluate democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferrin, M. en H. Kriesi (2014). Europeans’ Understandings and Evaluations of Democracy: Topline Results of Round 6 of the European Social Survey. Geraadpleegd via www.europeansocialsurvey.org/essresour-ces/findings.html
Ferrin, M. en H. Kriesi (red.) (nog te verschijnen). How Europeans view and evaluate democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finegold, M., B. Holland en T. Lingham (2002). Appreciative inquiry and public dialogue: An approach to community change. In: Public Organization Review, jg. 2, nr. 3, p. 235-252.
Fishkin, J.S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Flinders, M. (2012). Defending politics Why democracy matters in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flinders, M. (2015). The problem with democracy. In: Parliamentary Affairs (doi: 10.1093/pa/gsv008).
Fonseca, J.R.S. (2013). Clustering in the field of social sciences. In: International Journal of Social Research Method-ology, jg. 16, nr. 5, p. 403-428.
Font, J., M. Wojcieszak en C.J. Navarro (2015). Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferen-ces for Political Decision-Making ProPreferen-cesses. In: Political Studies, jg. 63, nr. 1, p. 153-172.
Fuchs, D. (1999). The democratic culture of unified Germany. In: P. Norris (red.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance (p. 123-145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Graaf, L. de, L. Schaap, M. Boogers en L. Mulder (2009). Lokale referenda in Nederland sinds 1990. In: Open-baar bestuur, jg. 19, nr. 8, p. 23-31.
Hagenaars, J.A. en A.L. McCutcheon (red.) (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hendriks, F., J. van Ostaaijen, K. van der Krieken en M. Keijzers (2013). Legitimiteitsmonitor Democratisch Bestuur 2013. Den Haag: ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.
Hibbing, J.R. en E. Theiss-Morse (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Houwelingen, P. van, A. Boele en P. Dekker (2014). Burgermacht op eigen kracht? Een brede verkenning van ontwik-kelingen in burgerparticipatie. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Keane, J. (2009). The life and death of democracy. New York: Norton & Company.
Kent, P., R. Jensen en A. Kongsted (2014). A comparison of three clustering methods for finding subgroups in mri, sms or clinical data.. In: bmc medical research methodology, jg. 14, nr. 1, p. 113.
Krastev, I. (2014). Democracy disrupted. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lange, S. de, M. Leyenaar en P. de Jong (2014). Politieke partijen: overbodig of nodig? Den Haag: Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur.
Linde, J. en J. Ekman (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in
Linde, J. en J. Ekman (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in